IMPORTANT POINT
Order of State Commission which is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, cannot be interfered with.

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the complainant, Power Additives (India) Pvt. Ltd. against the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had taken a Standard fire and Special Perils Policy of the respondent under insurance policy bearing no.111200/11/04/02434 valid from 28.03.2005 to 27.03.2006 for a total sum of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Three Thousand only. Under the policy, the appellant was insured with the respondent with respect to its office premises on the ground floor and the furniture, fixtures, fittings and air conditioners fitted therein. Appellant suffered losses due to the torrential rains of 26.07.2005, which resulted into heavy floods all over Mumbai. Due to floods, water entered into appellant company’s office premises on the ground, which resulted in extensive damage to the furniture, fittings, office partition (wooden), air conditioners, computers and other office tools and equipments. As soon as the floods subsided on 29.07.2005, i.e. three days after the floods, while opening the office, the officers of the appellant found all the furniture and fixtures in dilapidated condition blocking the main door from inside. The appellant informed the officer of respondent and took photographs of the damage caused. The appellant informed of the huge financial losses vide letter dated 5.09.2005 to the respondent.

3. Respondent appointed a surveyor who sought certain documents. Appellant immediately submitted all the documents to the aforesaid Mr. Nutan Prasad vide its letter dated 25.09.2005. Appellant had also provided the respondent with the value of the estimated loss incurred by the appellant due to the floods. After perusing the estimated losses, the respondent allowed the costs of only three items viz. office partition (wooden), Executive Chairs and Glasses. Respondent demanded for a registered Architect’s Certificate along with the design of interior layout certifying the cost of replacement as on September, 2005. The appellant vide its letter dated 06.01.2006 and 23.01.2006 submitted the Architect’s Certificate along with the design of interior layout certifying the cost of replacement as on September 2005 and valuation certificate of M/s. Sthapatya Architects in respect of the same.

4. Appellant requested for release of interim payment but to no avail. Appellant submitted all the necessary documents and details as per the requirements and demands of the respondent vide its letter dated 29.7.2006 and letter dated 28.10.2006. The respondent sent a voucher dated 05.03.2007 to the appellant offering a paltry sum of Rs.47,279/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Nine only) as full and final payment of the entire claim. The appellant raised his dispute owing to the amount of calculation vide letter dated 12.04.2007, on which the respondent revised the claim amount to the tune of Rs.86,765/-. Not satisfied with this, a complaint was filed before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Mumbai being Complaint Case No.102 of 2008 (RBT/CC/13/131). The respondent contested the same. Judgment dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay an amount of RS.8,57,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from 29.07.2007 till actual payment. The respondent filed First Appeal No.229 of 2012 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The matter was remanded back to the State Commission vide order dated 20.03.2013.

5. The State Commission passed impugned order/judgment dated 19.01.2015 revising the earlier awarded compensation of Rs.8,57,000/- to Rs.3,57,000/-.

6. Hence this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that by order dat